Relational Holiness

I am slowly working on an idea that makes so much sense in my mind, but is somewhat complex to express into words. Hopefully I will, in time, develop this thought further. The necessity to express this thought became very clear to me when reading a recent article in “Christianity Today.” The article “Hipster Christianity” told of a rising trend in the American Christian culture. While the whole of the article was not completely negative, it still turned my stomach. In an effort to be relevant, I am guessing, many young Christians are rejecting the attitudes of their elders for a more “edgy” demonstration of Christian life.

As for me, one of the most chilling aspects of the hipster movement revealed in this article was the fact that hipster Christians use foul language as a means of expression, even while in the pulpit or in meaningful talks upon the faith in order to relate to the people. I have never been one to concern myself when a fellow brother or sister uses certain words that are deemed negative by society. In fact, I have been guilty of such action myself. However, the true problem of this sort of habit became painfully clear when I realized that not only are some brothers and sisters allowing themselves to become a little too relaxed around each other, but they are openly using such language as a perverted evangelical tool, allowing the world to see that the hipster does not feel he or she is above others. In other words, they cuss so as not to seem “holier than thou.”

As I began to become physically ill at the actions of some of my fellow believers, I began to notice the plank in my own eye. (Do not allow my use of this description of my own fault as a plank have you assume that I see the adoption of worldly language by the hipster culture as a speck…It too is a plank, if not a whole tree house.) We must not allow people to think that relationship with Christ is anything less than an actual changing, a perfecting, from worldly negativity to Christ-centeredness. Thus, even the occasional relaxing of the tongue around those who know my true heart is living far below my calling and privilege.

To live a set-apart, holy life does not necessitate a “holier than thou” attitude. In fact, if holiness is the character demonstrated by Christ, humbleness is surely a large part. Would we ever say Christ was pretentious simply because He did not have a slanderous tongue?

One might say, “Well, you are not Christ, and to pretend to be is pretentious.” But is that not our call? Surely, if we were not asked to follow Christ, we would be pretentious, but we are begged to follow. We are dared to follow. And how might we follow Christ’s directive to be demonstrators of God’s holiness if we cannot truly, by God’s might, be holy (Matt 5: 16; also see Ezek 36:23). God is to be shown holy by the actions of His people. Becoming popular was never the point of the Christian movement. Using the world’s negative language is to ignore and profane the holy name of God. And while the hipster might imagine that his loose tongue makes the unbeliever more comfortable when being evangelized, in effect, they are only belittling the calling of God before the nonbeliever. There is no confidence in the Christian faith for the unbeliever if he or she cannot see any recognizable differnce in the faithful.

But why are my peers, the younger Christian generations, adopting this perverted style of evangelism. In my estimation, I think the problem is largely owed to a loss in the Biblical mandate to be holy. And so a secondary question has to be asked: why have we lost our stress on the doctrine of holiness. In short, I think it is out of disgust that many have turned their noses. Sometime ago, many advocates of Christian holiness lost sight of its relational qualities and made it into a legalistic lifestyle, and the larger holiness movement has suffered ever since.

Since the Reformation, Western Christianity has had little trouble accepting God’s imputation of righteousness to believers. Imputation of righteousness simply means that God, in a forensic sense, declares His followers righteous because they belong to and are covered by Christ. However, the Christian culture has had more than a little trouble accepting God’s impartation of righteousness to believers. Impartation of righteousness simply means that God not only declares us righteous after conversion, but actually begins to transform the believer into a righteous being, not only in word but in deed.

As I said in my opening, I have a lot I want to say on the matter, but I need more time in order to flesh it all out. Therefore, I do not want to belabor my point by offering partially thought out ideas. Instead, I will come to a more abrupt end by revealing what I see as the primary issue. Holiness has largely been ignored because of the perversions others have used to distort its truth. Legalism has made many in the Christian culture become reactionary against the holiness movement, instead of engaging in the movement while using correctives to keep it on the course. While some in the movement have remained engaged despite the narrow views of others, many more have ignored the movement altogether.

The real misunderstanding comes in peoples’ concepts as to how holiness is imparted to the believer. Many have assumed that holiness is an autonomous character gifted by God but exercised by the believer. We do in fact exercise this gift, but not in a completely autonomous fashion. It is not as if God gives us a holy character so that we might be holy apart from Him. This was never the intention for humanity. We were always meant to be holy as we relate to God, but this does not mean, as so many assume, that we are only to be called holy because we belong to a holy God.

We actually are made holy, and we are actually capable of living in action a holy life by the impartation of God’s grace. But this holy character is still incumbent upon God’s presence. In other words, we are capable of being made holy, for it is our focus on and relation to Christ that makes this possible. Instead of impartation of righteousness being a gift of an autonomous, perfect character, it is a reorientation of the being away from selfishness to Christ. As Christians are drawn away from the desires of the flesh by God’s transforming grace, they begin to focus on Christ and to follow His will. Therefore, holiness is relational, for to remove Christ from the center would be to remove that which guides us into holy living.

To live as if we cannot be holy, but are merely to claim Christ’s holiness as our own without allowing it to change our orientation is to fall short of our calling. The hipster movement has missed out on the fullness of the gospel. There needs to be a revival, a reformation of the emerging Christian culture.

“Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct…” I Peter 15

Idolizing God

Being honest with oneself, a person may find that he or she is not so much in love with God, but, at least in part, his or her idea of God. This becomes obvious as one matures in his or her understanding of theology. As biblical truth found through Scriptural study begins to replace traditional thought instilled by others and/or self-referenced thought driven by desire, one may find his or her entire religious framework being deconstructed and rebuilt. The Christian faith is an entering into a relationship with a transcendent Being that cannot be entirely understood by the human mind. Thus, categorical knowledge of the being of God will forever be an unfinished area of understanding. It is often a painful revelation when one begins to discover that he or she does not have a true relationship with God, but, instead, has idolized God according to his or her own desires and understandings.

The action of idolizing is not often attributed to someone’s development of coming to understand the being of God, but humans are capable of doing so, nonetheless. Usually, idolization is thought of as the process of uplifting an object or person beyond its rightful status, many times placing its importance above God. However, one cannot rightfully suggest that a person is capable of raising God above His status, for He is the highest being in existence. Therefore, this cannot be what I mean by idolizing God.

In ancient pagan tradition, which is still represented in some religions today such as Hinduism, the worshiper would create an image of a god called an idol. This object would be used in order to worship and manipulate the god. Because this image was derived from the human’s mind, it represented the human’s self-projection of his or her desire of what this god might be. This is why God expressly forbids the Hebrews to create any graven images of Him, for God created us in His image, not the other way around. Therefore, humans are guilty of idolizing God when they create within their minds an image of God that pleases their liking instead of coming to understand God as He presents Himself.

Oddly enough, idolizing God has quite a different and almost opposite effect than idolizing any other object or being. The results are not entirely opposite because they are both negative, but for very different reasons. To idolize anything other than God is to raise that thing above its status, and is an injustice to that object. For example, many persons in a relationship, especially a relatively new relationship, will often idolize the other person, expecting the other to be the perfect match according their own desires. As a result, the idolizers will often become unfairly disappointed in the other when they do not act to desired preconceived notions. In fact, this is why many relationships end, even marriages: The person was more in love with an idea of the other than they were with the other.

On the other hand, when a religious person creates God in his or her own mind, the result is not a raising up of God beyond His intended position, but it is to lower God from His status, because human projections always fall short of His glory. While learning of God is an invaluable investment, one cannot presume that his or her knowledge of God produces any sort of relationship. Instead, true relationship should produce greater understanding of God. To enter into this relationship, one need not obtain a particular knowledge of God. Instead one must become submissive to God’s will. Through obedience we fall deeper in love and come to truly know God. Love is expressed not through a self-taught knowledge, but obedience and trust (John 14:15).

The Importance of Right Doctrine

It has often been said that right doctrine is not as important to Christian faith as right relation. However, right relation seems to be based upon proper understanding. Assume that you enter into a relationship with person X. Let’s say that this is the common relationship of friendship. You might assume that X desires to share ideas, interests, maybe even sorrows, but X assumes that this relationship also entails that the two of you will participate in certain morally wrong actions such as robbing others of valuable items. Unfortunately for you, this assumption is only made clear when X steals from a stranger and you are obligated to respond justly, breaking what X thinks is a commonly held tenet of the friendship. Obviously, this situation was based on false assumptions of or ignorance to this facet of X’s character that might have been avoided if you had attempted to learn more about X.

Relational interaction between personal beings is heavily impacted by the shared assumptions of each person, and knowing each other’s character can help inform what the person might expect out of a relationship. If the character of God cannot be separated from the being of God, and I suspect it cannot, since God is defined by such characteristics as love, then right study of God and right understanding of His character will lend to better relation with Him. Being in Christian faith is being in a relationship with God, and for any two beings to be in proper relation to the other, it is beneficial for each person to understand the other, especially when one being offers relation based on certain principles to which he or she expects the other to agree. It goes without saying that God knows our character and what is best for us since He is our Creator. However, as humans, we often lack understanding or have misunderstandings concerning God’s character.

Christian doctrine helps us to rightly express God’s character as well as His purposes for being in relationship with humanity, but often we observe that many in relationship with Him do not hold to certain doctrines that have been affirmed by the majority of the church. Some presuppose that such lack of understanding in a saint points to the fact that doctrines are not important. In fact, the church at large has various denominations that differ on many theological doctrines. However, is unimportance the only logical inference that can be extracted from this sort of situation?

Doctrines are human expressions of a greater truth. The truth precedes our understanding. A truth does not depend on our ability to affirm such a truth. In other words, humans do not arbitrarily create doctrine, but form doctrinal understanding and formulas based on an established truth concerning God and His will for humanity, as revealed in Scripture. If there exists person who are in relation to the Father and yet are not willing to confirm or are ignorant to a certain doctrine, then they are in relation to God by His grace and mercy, not merely because the doctrine is of no importance. The truth that is affirmed by the doctrine still presses upon and has consequences for this person, whether he or she wishes to affirm this truth or not.

I suspect that each of us have certain misunderstandings because of our ignorance, and God is gracious enough to allow us an opportunity to learn, not before we enter into relationship, but while we are in relationship. Although God is gracious enough to allow us our ignorance, it is not beneficial for us to remain in such a state. It is better to come to right understanding of doctrine through study and prayer than to find out the hard way by assuming an incorrect reality of God only to painfully stumble when we wrongfully suspect we are in His will when we are not. Thankfully, when we wonder so far due to misunderstanding we experience pain so that we might realize our mistake, but I suspect each of us would rather properly avoid the pain in the first place.

With this in mind, proper doctrinal affirmations are of much benefit to the believers and can help believers in leading others into a proper relationship with God.

Christianity and the Reality of Death

Christianity and the Reality of Death

"Die before you die. There is no chance after." C. S. Lewis

I recently heard some talk over a program airing on television that demonstrated that psychologist have the ability to manipulate and stimulate a subject’s mind in such a way, I assume through electronic signal, that the subject begins to believe he or she is having a religious experience. Specifically, the subject assumes he or she is in the presence of God. Once again, this is hearsay, but as it was reported to me, the thrust of the program was set out to prove that humans have naturally developed the concept of a divine being so that we might feel comforted in light of certain fears, such as the reality of death and persecution. Of course, this is nothing new. Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud are among many who have suggested such theories, both for various reasons.

I do not have much time to watch such programming, nor do I have much to say on the matter, mainly because I think these sorts of theories warrant little attention due to their distortion of the issue. However, out of frustration, I do feel the need to briefly address this topic and share what I think is an obvious, albeit theological, rebuttal to such notions. The one major fact that secular psychology is overlooking is that the claim that Christianity is a religion that somehow comforts us in the knowledge of inevitable death is a straw man. If one has this sort of understanding of Christianity, he or she is missing the point.

For many persons struggling with doubt or disbelief in the divine and the supernatural, this program seems to offer some major implications as to how we are to understand the phenomenon of religion. However, are the results from such experimentation really detrimental to Christian belief? Are not the scientists’ analysis of the results presupposing that such a result, manipulation of mind in a certain way produces the feeling of the divine, points to there not being a God. Why should it be the case that the “discovery” of the mind’s having a natural, built-in concept of God be understood as pointing to a mechanism developed by evolution that helps humans cope with fears? Have not theologians been suggesting that humans have the natural concept of God precisely because God gave humans this capability?

However, my own issues with this line of thought are not even based in the question of whether or not we are given this sense or not. I find the assumption that Christianity is a crutch for humans to deal with the concept of death to be a gross misunderstanding of the true message of the faith.

Christianity, in many ways, is a call to death. Death is not an avoidable reality. Instead, we are called to die to self so that we might become Christ-centered beings. We are to become so Christ like, as Saint Paul suggests, that when we act and live, it will be Christ who is living in and through us (For more on this topic, please refer to my essay, “If Christ is All, What Does that Make Me?”). Persons entering into the faith, as well as Christians at various points in our walk MUST face death. We are called to become radically new beings that result from a giving up of all the self wants and desires, which is to keep the status quo.

Secular psychology is not interested in this fact. Spirituality might be taken into consideration in evaluating humans, and I do not want to belittle any secular psychologist who does consider the possibility of the life-changing aspect of faith. However, I doubt many psychologists do take such accounts of one becoming a new creation seriously. Therefore, they study men and women in their natural state. In our natural state, humanity has been left wanting, knowing there must be something else out there, but also knowing of the ultimate reality of death. This does lead to fear, but Christians have never denied the fact, as these scientists seem to be presupposing, that each and ever person must face this fear and die. We only suggest that death might be more than what the secular definition seems to suggest. Death is frightening because we lose ourselves. The self wants to survive, but it cannot. Christians affirm this, and our faith does not suggest any way around this fact. We merely suggest that this sort of death can happen during this life. The natural self (the sin-oriented self) can, in this very life, die and be born anew, but we still lose that self that so desperately wishes to be in control, or at least we should.

Psychologists by-and-large have been suggesting, as the television program suggested, that humans must find a way to cope with the void left by the self-realization of our finitude, but Christians do not find that finitude is the root of the void. Instead, there exists a hole left by our separation from God.

Therefore, to commit to Christ, one must be willing to give up his or her life as he or she wishes it to be, and this is a very scary reality to face indeed. All the self-oriented desires must pass away. In a real sense, to pass into Christianity is to face, once-and-for-all, the finitude of the self. It is at the moment of committing to Christ that we die to self and begin life anew, reborn and converted to a new way of life. We do not die in a mere metaphorical sense; it is a true passing into another life. While physical death still awaits us, that does not deny the fact that we have already faced the reality of death. Maybe this reality is more hopeful than the secular understanding, but that does not mean it is wrong.

Thus, secular psychology gets it wrong when it suggests Christians are not willing to let go. For letting go is the very purpose we are called into this faith. It is the very essence of the faith. So, what then do I make of the claims of this television show? What if science has proven that it is in our very nature to have the desire for a divine presence in our life? Well, that makes sense to me. Does it not to you? God has given us the ability to desire and know of Him. As for such claims that we, or better yet, evolutionary process created our notion of God, well, I do not have much more time to discuss such nonsense.

Ever Strengthening Faith

This post is a quick reflection on a philosophy class I just finished concerning Reason and Faith. I have not hammered out my thoughts nor did I proof-read this post. With that said, please read with mercy in light of that fact, and return in a few weeks for an updated version.

We know that belief-that God exists is not enough for salvation. Salvation is relationship with God. While I might believe that the president of the United States exists, this by no means suggests that I am in relationship with Barrack Obama. Likewise, one might know of God without knowing God personally. But many suggest that humans can only “know” things through natural inference. Natural inference does not allow for us to enter into spiritual relationship with God. There are some who suggest that faith is just a form of belief of the mind. However, many Christians suggest that faith is a matter of the soul/spirit and not merely a matter of the mind. If this is the case, can faith ever be effective? Can it ever overcome doubt?

There have been philosophers that have pointed out that we are only able to reason from experience. Our language is built upon experience, and we explore ideas by forming them into words. Thus, God cannot reveal anything to us that we cannot understand from experience. We cannot say, suggests this line of argumentation, that God gives us any special revelation that we could not arrive at from experience. And, even if He can, it does not do anyone else any good because we have no words from experience to explain what has been revealed. In other words, God cannot, or, at very least, does not have to, reveal anything new to us. With this in mind, these philosophers contend that all the knowledge that we can ever affirm, we learn through natural methods of reasoning from past experience. Thus, faith has little to do with the statement: “I know God.” Is this really the case?

Although the argument about beliefs might not deal exactly with faith itself, I find that it does have implications for some persons’ views of faith. For example, many Christians would argue that faith is a higher ability than reason. In addition, many would also posit that faith informs reason. In light of the above reasoning, can this be the case? Can we claim that “belief-that,” a product of the mind, can be informed by, “belief-in” (faith), a product, arguably, of a higher function? If faith is beyond humans’ natural experience and is not developed from experience, can it still inform the mind which understands from experience?

I think there is a way that faith can be helpful to reason, even if reason only affirms what we know from experience. Faith might be a quality that, among other things, somehow strengthens our already formed beliefs of the mind.

For example S might believe through reasoning from evidence that G probably exists. Let’s say that S was willing to place a value of 55% to this assuredness of G’s existence. Let us also imagine that S has tried with all his might to find evidence for G, but still is only somewhat sure and holds some doubt. Could it not be the case that G has a power to reward S if S chooses, on account of his desire for relationship with G, to trust G in spite of lingering doubt. Suppose G provides that faith, a quality He provides if S desires to exercise it, is such a quality that it causes the mind to become more certain in previously held beliefs. Thus, because S decides to place his faith by gradually raising S’s assurance of G’s existence, until it eventually reaches 100%. This could be accomplished by some relation of soul and body, in which a soul that has faith has the ability to cause the body to be a healthier functioning machine so that the mind can more easily replace doubt with trust.

I am not exactly sure how this might work, but let’s think of one possibility to show that it is at least logically consistent. It is natural for our feelings to play a part in the strength of our beliefs. Feelings do not have to be the direct result of beliefs. When I look at my wife and my heart flutters, I do not experience this love just because I believe she exists and loves me back. My feelings for her are deeper than my beliefs about her. If we believe in unconditional love, we must affirm this. Thus, feelings can be something other than beliefs that yet effects belief.

If faith is beyond reason, does that still mean it cannot influence our emotions? I see no reason that it cannot. When feelings are heightened, our beliefs are impacted. For example, when I hear a bump in the night, I might think nothing of it at first, but then I begin to think of the safety of my wife and daughter. The emotion of fear begins to drive my belief that there is someone in the house until I become almost certain of this.

Faith might not be a mere belief that God is present, but an overwhelming feeling that He is reaching out to our heart. While our mind might not think much of His presence at first, the feeling lingers and will not leave us alone: the stronger the feeling, the stronger the belief.

Thus, we do not have to affirm that faith is just another species of belief that is formed in the mind of man. It is a gift from God that is more likened to feeling than ascent to truth, seeded in the heart, to keep us grounded in His love. While there have existed times in my walk in faith that I might have thought, “what if God is not there?” there has been something much deeper within my being that has kept me rooted in my walk, and I believe this is the quality of faith. Praise God!

The Crutch of Inbred Sin

“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? –Saint Paul, Apostle of Christ

Reliance upon sin for the Christian is deplorable; we are surely to utterly rely on Christ and no other. Yet we often defer to our inbred impurity as excuse for wrongdoings. It is true that our perfection is not realized at the moment of conversion. Sin still lives within. However, while it lives within, it has no more dominion when Christ’s Spirit resides on the throne of the heart. Can we deny this? Is it not the case, as St. Paul suggests, that in light of the Spirit, if we focus upon Him, we remain in His will and do not have the opportunity to sin (Galatians 5:16)? Voluntary sin on behalf of the Christian is thus an act of volition in which one diverts His gaze from God Most High. In light of this, are we justified in the acclimation that “the Devil made me do it?”

As a matter-of-fact, I must recognize infirmities and psychological ills. In this consideration, I recognize such evils that result from these conditions of the human being to be involuntary and unrecognized as sin by the offender. In His mercy, God extends grace to us when we are guilty of such transgression. The above query deals with those sins that we recognize as such and participate in them nevertheless. This is the nature of such sin that we attribute to inbred sin. To attribute it as such is to recognize it as sin. So, I ask again, are we justified, in light of our known sin, to say, “I cannot but help to sin. It is in my nature”?

If it is an act of volition, how can we say such things? One might object, “I am weak, and my brokenness is such that I cannot help but sin. I would respond, “Do you not call yourself a follower of Christ and, as such, do you not proclaim to have Him living within? If so, then is it by your power that you live, or by His?” In light of the multitude of sin we are capable of committing in our life, it is easy to say that I might become overwhelmed and must submit to my nature at some point in time. However, think of each potential sin as it presents itself through initial temptation. Reflecting on each potential sin, one at a time, do we not have the ability to deny our temptation by appealing to the power of Christ within, or is that power too weak?

In order of the severity of their impact, think upon sin from least to greatest. The white lie: are you unable, with Christ’s power, to deny your desire to lie and instead tell the truth? The act of stealing: are you unable, with Christ’s power, to deny your desire to steal and instead trust Him for sustenance? The act of murder: are you unable, with Christ power, to deny your desire to kill and instead learn to love others as Christ loves you? When temptation comes our way, cannot Christ lead the heart away from such contemplations, or is His model prayer said in vein when we say, “Lead us not into temptation”?

When we approach sinful acts in this manner, we surely affirm Christ’s power over each, but in real life circumstances we too often circum to our temptations and use our inbred sin as an excuse. Sin has no power over those who are in Christ. While it lingers until we are perfected in Him, it cannot, or, at very least, should not reign. But, in order to realize this truth, we must trust in His power, and this is as much a plea for myself to follow as it is my message to you.

While we are capable of sin, even as Christians, and still have an advocate with the Father if we do fail, we do not have to do so. Sin should be the rarest of exceptions and never the rule. He has the power to deliver if we be vigilant enough to recognize our temptations and then lean utterly upon Him.

Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all you care upon Him; for He cares for you. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. But the God of all grace, who has called us unto His eternal glory by Christ, after that you have suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you. To Him be the glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen –I Peter 5:6-11

Is Equality an Established Truth?

Most sane human beings have some sort of ethic from which to operate based in a phenomenon known as morality. Morality seems to be an inescapable quality that humanity upholds and from which we establish laws to which we hold each other responsible to follow. The ethic of equality that we, especially in the United States, hold seems to be a peculiar and particular assumption that must be firmly grounded in other beliefs (i.e. humans have value, etc.). Equality that grants each person a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be based on the fact that each human has been created with such rights. But, what overarching law demands this equality?

It would seem that if it were the case, as many assume, that humanity arrived on the scene through a very gradual, unsupervised process of natural selection (NS), there would be no other laws of morality than those created by the creatures that arrived from this process. Or, as the proponents of Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian suspect, NS might, out of necessity, demand “survival of the fittest” (SOF). The ethic of equality seems to assume a prior law set in place before humanity, not set by humanity, and although NS might precede humanity, it does not seem to grant equality; in fact, SOF seems to preclude such a law.

Most people base basic human rights on the basis of a divine authority. In other words, we establish our equality on the fact that we are created by a God who has established order as such. However, there have been some in recent times that have tried to establish the basic right of equality without the need for a higher authority. Can this be the case?

I might be able to write a lengthy dissertation on the topic, and someday I might do just that. But today I have a simple thought. So, for now, consider the following: There have been philosophers in the past that attempt to establish an ethic based on the ambiguity of our existence. One such philosopher Simon De Beauvoir claims that, since we are the highest being, at least that we know of, it is our responsibility to establish the rights of others and live peaceable lives based on our own ability to take charge of our fate. She argues that if there is no higher being, we are duty-bound to take control.

While these philosophers establish a need for humans to be responsible in forming ethics and laws, it still seems that the basic right of equality is not so basic without the assumption of the existence of God. Why is it my responsibility to establish equality for persons weaker than myself? If it were the case that there were no God and SOF was our highest governing truth, it might be argued that it is human duty to exploit and expose the weakness of others, ethnically or otherwise, so that we might weed out disease, figuratively or otherwise, that is spread by their weakness and incapability.

I know that the previous statement is a disagreeable one, and it is so for good reason. I submit that it is disagreeable because equality of all humanity is a basic truth grounded in God, otherwise it could not be rightly considered basic at all. If one believes in equality for all, the existence of God seems to be the most reasonable explanation of the existence of such a basic truth.